Supreme Court ruling provides clarity on NPPF Housing Supply Guidance

For a case to be heard by the Supreme Court, it must raise points of law of public importance. This is the first time that the NPPF has come before it, indicating the nationwide impact that the decision may have on housing provision.

The much anticipated judgment (on the Suffolk Coastal DC v Hopkins Homes and Richborough Estates v Cheshire East BC case) provided clarity on the scope of development plan policies that can be given reduced weight in the absence of a five year supply of deliverable housing sites.

The decision is important for those promoting residential development in areas deficient in housing supply, where broader land use policies are in place that seek to constrain development for environmental or amenity purposes. This could include policies that concern:

•                Protection of open countryside or green gaps;

•                Development beyond settlement boundaries; and

•                Other landscape and townscape designations.

The case centred on paragraphs 14 and 49 of the NPPF, which state the “presumption in favour of sustainable development” and for applications involving housing, advise that “relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply”.

Where there is an undersupply of housing land, these elements of the NPPF when read together, seek to divert the decision maker away from the development plan housing policies and towards the NPPF’s guidance.

In earlier decisions, Planning Inspectors and the Court of Appeal had considered that the broader policies listed above could be considered “relevant to the supply of housing” and therefore could be considered as “out-of-date”.  

Contrary to this, the Supreme Court decision favours a narrower interpretation of “relevant policies”, covering only those policies that deal explicitly with housing supply (for example policies detailing the quantum of development and the housing allocations to achieve this). However, this is not an opportunity for LPAs to continue to apply other policies rigorously and frustrate the housing supply objectives of the NPPF.

The ruling makes clear that the decision maker should weigh up the consequences of an undersupply of housing against other policies in the development plan that may be restricting that supply. A sensible balanced judgement is advocated.

A general theme running through the ruling is that planning policy should be read in the proper context and interpreted objectively. It re-affirms the importance of the statutory development plan and warns that the policy-making role of the Secretary of State should not be overstated.

Planning Potential’s Residential Team can advise on opportunities that may be influenced by a local undersupply of housing, and how other policies restricting development under these circumstances should be approached.